This has been well-documented in recent months, with the Afghan military losing ground significantly to the Taliban. The casualties are further exacerbating Afghan military shortfalls, caused by poor recruiting, and large numbers of “ghost troops” who exist only on paper.

Gen. Votel sought to downplay this to the reporters, however, saying Afghan officials have acknowledged the casualties but have said they “will not deter them.” Votel is also keen to see the Afghan military abandon attempts to defend territory and hold military checkpoints.

Instead, Gen. Votel argues that the Afghans should abandon their static defensive positions, which they can’t sustain anyhow, and focus entirely on an offensive war. Afghan officials have yet to comment on this, but it is unlikely that letting the Taliban overrun all these sites is a realistic option for them.

20 thoughts on “US General Warns of Rising Afghan Battlefield Losses”

Another loser general, sorry for the repetition.
“I didn’t fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that’s not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them would be in jail.” — Harry S Truman

“Somalia. . . And so I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it’s in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn’t have supported either.” –George W. Bush, Oct 11, 2000 here

Our “best interest” is a nebulous term, but when there is no apparent justification for use of military force, the old “national security interests” is always paraded out. Either before or after the term “bad actor” is thrown out for whoever we are or want to bomb.

It’s not only battlefield losses the general ought to be concerned with. Nearly a million US troops have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of them several times. What happens to them? Who pays the price? Who else suffers from the battlefield losses?. . . Twenty US veterans commit suicide every single day. The effect on the foreigners subjected to these atrocities is unknown, and uninteresting to those in charge of the mayhem.

The US military has released a report that a US C-130 transport plane has crashed in Afghanistan, killing at least 11 people, a US defense official has said. Among the dead are six US troops and contracted civilians whose nationalities have not been disclosed. The Taliban has claimed responsibility for shooting down the C-130, according to AFP.

The perpetual question, Why do our Afghans fight so poorly compared to their Afghans? Had the same question in Vietnam didn’t we. It would seem one side is fighting for their religious beliefs and to free their land from foreign invaders and the other side is fighting for a paycheck.

“Every influence, every motive, that provokes the spirit of murder among men, impels these mountaineers to deeds of treachery and violence. The strong aboriginal propensity to kill, inherent in all human beings, has in these valleys been preserved in unexampled strength and vigour. That religion, which above all others was founded and propagated by the sword — the tenets and principles of which are instinct with incentives to slaughter and which in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men — stimulates a wild and merciless fanaticism. The love of plunder, always a characteristic of hill tribes, is fostered by the spectacle of opulence and luxury which, to their eyes, the cities and plains of the south display. A code of honour not less punctilious than that of old Spain, is supported by vendettas as implacable as those of Corsica. . . .. Then the Mullah will raise his voice and remind them of other days when the sons of the prophet drove the infidel from the plains of India, and ruled at Delhi, as wide an Empire as the Kafir holds to-day: when the true religion strode proudly through the earth and scorned to lie hidden and neglected among the hills: when mighty princes ruled in Bagdad, and all men knew that there was one God, and Mahomet was His prophet. And the young men hearing these things will grip their Martinis [British rifle], and pray to Allah, that one day He will bring some Sahib — best prize of all — across their line of sight at seven hundred yards so that, at least, they may strike a blow for insulted and threatened Islam.” — Winston Churchill, journalist, 1897, aged 23

I assume General Votel is a professional military officer with training. If he is, he should probably be aware that offensive tactics have never worked against guerrilla armies with popular support. When the military conducts its offensive sweeps, the guerrillas simply melt away into the population, who protect and hide them, only to emerge as soon as the military departs. This “offensive sweep” tactic failed in Vietnam, it failed in Afghanistan, it failed in Iraq, it even failed in the Battle of the Atlantic against the Kriegsmarine’s U Boats, which would simply submerge and let the Royal Navy destroyers pass by overhead. If you rule out genocide as a solution, it is only fortified positions (fire support bases, closely defended convoys, etc) that draw the guerrillas into combat and allow a realistic chance of fighting them on *your* terms.

It’s only against a conventional army that offensive operations might win. Now, conventional warfare is the last stage of a guerrilla war, when the guerrillas have grown so strong that they can mount frontal attacks and seize territory from an opponent who is also a conventional army. Is Votel now admitting that the Taliban have reached that stage?

The Taliban doesn’t need “conventional warfare….the last stage of a guerrilla war” to achieve its objectives. It is doing quite well raiding Afghan Army camps and strong-points, and district capitals, etc.